tolgee-mcp

by ytarfa

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

list_keys

Retrieve a paginated list of localization keys for a Tolgee project by specifying project ID, page, and page size.

Instructions

List localization keys in a Tolgee project.

Args:
    project_id: The numeric ID of the project.
    page: Page number (0-indexed, default 0).
    size: Number of keys per page (default 20).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_keys"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes
`page`	No
`size`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, data freshness, or pagination boundaries beyond defaults. The agent gets no extra safety or behavior info.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded, but includes a Python-style 'Args:' block that is somewhat redundant since parameters are already in the schema. Still, it is efficient and clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema exists (not shown), the description doesn't need to cover return values. However, it omits any mention of filtering, ordering, or other common listing features, which leaves gaps for an agent deciding to use this tool over siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description clarifies that page is 0-indexed and provides default values. This adds value beyond the schema's names and types. However, for a simple 3-parameter tool, the description adds adequate meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'List localization keys in a Tolgee project', specifying the verb (list) and resource (localization keys in a project). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_keys or get_translations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides basic parameter details (project_id required, page/size defaults) but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_keys. No when-not-to-use or context for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.